PAW
Letter Box OnlinePAW
has expanded its Web site to include a feature called Letter Box, where
many more letters than can fit in the print magazine are published. Please
go to
Letter Box to read and respond.

Certainly, we should all rejoice in the decline of the
old boys network. But PAWs celebration of Wall Street executive
Alexandra Lebenthal 86 (cover
story, February 27) seems to miss the larger point of why we should
rejoice.

When women deserving of top-level positions are passed
over for senior managerial roles out of social tradition, it offends our
belief in meritocracy. While Lebenthals story speaks to the rise
of women above the non-meritocratic glass ceiling built on gender, her
story also testifies to the persistence of an even more pernicious glass
ceiling based on legacy.

Princeton enjoys portraying itself as a meritocratic
institution in the public service. PAWs cover story on Lebenthal
testifies that Princeton remains far from understanding its own vision.
If the university really wants to tear down obstructions to meritocracy,
it should start by treating the children of alumni like all other applicants.

After reading Ron
Halpern 71s letter (February 13) I felt a burning desire
to respond. I found myself feeling pity for Mr. Halpern. I do not pity
him because of his views, I pity him because he clearly missed out on
the wonderful experience that was, is, and will always be Princeton University.
Yes, we generally have a not-so-subtle arrogance about ourselves,
but that is a pride in ourselves and this incredibly distinguished institution.
I do not agree with Mr. Halperns assertion that Princetonians ignore
and do not care about non-Princetonians; rather, I think it is our intense
love of Princetonians and Princeton that he mischaracterizes as indifference
to others. My entire family and the vast majority of my close friends
are members of the great unwashed portion of society referred
to by Mr. Halpern, yet I love them every bit as much as I would if they
were Princetonians. I feel a common bond with fellow Princetonians, and
I do not feel that it is taking anything away from my relationships with
others. My time at Princeton was filled with excitement, boredom, incredible
joy, and sadness, but overall, a sense of achievement and pride. I am
sure that I speak with the voice of a great number of Princetonians when
I state that I love Princeton, and I sincerely wish that Mr. Halpern did
too.

Daniel J. Sattizahn 99
Granger, Ind.

Ron
Halpern 71 articulates an important
set of concerns that I think many of us recognize. I wonder if the estrangement
he describes is more common or more acute among alumni who live in the
West? When the attractive forces decrease as a function of both time and
space, perhaps the estrangement increases as a power of both. In any event,
the rhetorical styles of our undergraduate years (a regular feature of
class notes, as Mr. Halpern identifies) seem odd, at best.

Regarding H. Lansing
Vail 46s letter (February 27) summarizing the opinions
of the Princeton Alumni Association of Northern Ohio on the onset of coeducation
at Princeton (overwhelmingly . . . NO!): It is my distinct
pleasure, as a second-generation Princetonian and member of the Class
of 2000, to report that the problems of coeducation foreseen 30 years
ago by those living 100 miles west of the Hudson River are more than outweighed
by the rewards reaped 30 miles south of it today. I feel very fortunate
indeed to have spent four years developing some of the most important
friendships of my life based on shared senses of humor and shared intellectual
explorations, and not constrained by the gender segregation that so inevitably
makes men and women alien to one another.

Sexual harassment is unacceptable; it is also, unfortunately,
a fact of our culture. I left Princeton galvanized by what is wrong with
gender relations in this country and tremendously inspired by what is
right. I also left with the strength, of both intellect and conviction,
to work toward a more just and civil society.

I write in response to Hugh
M. F. Lewis 41 (Letters, January 30), who suggested that the
trustees promptly convert Princeton to a single-sex, female university
and be done with it because Princeton now has a lady president
and a lady second-in-command.

Based on your letter, Mr. Lewis, it is clear that you
are no Tiger, you are a dinosaur.

Betsy Smith Hellmann 93
New York, N.Y.

When I read Hugh Lewis
41s sardonic letter about Princeton becoming all female,
I was saddened not so much by his viewpoint as by his brevity. It seemed
that he chose to throw his hands up in the air rather than attempt serious
debate.

I believe all the characteristics that people have held
against President Tilghman will prove beneficial. Her perception of the
university has not been colored by the joys and melodramas of youth, as
would be the case with an alumna or alumnus. Her Canadian citizenship
has a sobering effect on rising American jingoism. And her atheism expresses
an objectivity that will steer Princeton through these difficult times.
As for gender, I trust that President Tilghman and the other women in
her administration will judge men more equitably than they themselves
have been judged in the past, thereby giving new meaning to the term the
fair sex.

Martin Schell 74
Klaten, Indonesia

If Hugh Lewis 41 is perturbed by the fact that
President Tilghman, almost all of her top-dog appointments, and almost
all of PAWs staff are female, hed better sit down before he
looks at the roster of the Alumni Council staff. Its currently 100-percent
male-free.

Terry Wintroub 69
Lawrenceville, N.J.

One of the delights of PAW is reading the letters from
disgruntled alumni. Normally I chuckle at these letters and move on, but
the January 30 issue contains such a classic collection that I cant
resist commenting.

First is a fine example of an old favorite, the women
are ruining Princeton genre, from Hugh
M. F. Lewis 41. Mr. Lewis includes the always-fun assertion
that he doubts youll dare to print his letter even though lots of
alumni agree with him. Unfortunately, the declining number of PAW letters
complaining about women suggests there may not be many of this kind of
old fogey left after all.

Next we have another familiar complaint, this one about
architecture, from James F.
Lotspeich 44. Mr. Lotspeich decries the decision to have the
new science library designed by Frank Gehry, who is considered the greatest
architect of our time by many critics and working architects.

The most virulent of the letters, and the only one that
bothered me, is from Robert
0. Woods 62 on the familiar theme of people I disagree
with who therefore shouldnt be allowed to speak on campus.
The object of Mr. Woodss ire is Danny Glover, who gave a speech
opposing Americas use of capital punishment (a view shared by a
hefty percentage of Americans). My concern about Mr. Woodss letter,
however, is not its substance or even its overheated language. It is that
Mr. Woods is from a younger class than I am. Please do not print any more
old-fogey letters from classes younger than 1955. They make me fear that
I am getting very old.

It is rewarding to read about the exciting innovations now occurring
at the university. I was especially interested in the January 30 issue
with the article titled, Welcome
to Princeton. What a wonderful introduction for incoming freshmen
to have seminars taught by some of the finest minds and teachers in the
university. How fortunate they are!

I read with interest President Tilghmans letter on early decision
(Presidents Page, February 27)
and was thrilled to see that fairness and equity were among the important
goals of the admission process. In her essay, she also talks about enrolling
the strongest possible class. And therein, it seems to me,
might be a little contradiction.

The admission process as it exists is inherently unfair. It favors families
who can afford SAT tutoring, good school districts, private education,
trips abroad, music lessons, sports camps, and special instruction. It
ultimately serves to widen the gap between an educated elite and those
who are not so fortunate. Early decision in particular favors the cynical
and savvy who understand the statistical advantages of applying early.

My proposal: Eliminate early decision. Accept applications only from
students who are among the top 10 percent of their high school classes.
Then, using a lottery, pull out twice as many applications as the number
of students Princeton intends to admit. Let people know their status after
the lottery. Read only the applications that make it through the lottery
and choose the class from these. The admission staffs work would
be dramatically cut, and they would truly be able to get to know the applicants
and choose the strongest. Princeton would be pulling from
a wider pool and opening the gates to students who might not otherwise
even consider applying. Perhaps Princeton would end up with a class that
has fewer highly accomplished young people. But even if that were the
case, the quality of a Princeton education is so extraordinary that surely
the end results for any class admitted this way would be no different
from what they are now.

Such a plan would be a powerful statement of confidence in the quality
of the education offered, even if you admitted only a portion of a class
this way. But it could also have some more valuable effects. It could
create a more democratic Princeton. It could make for a more diverse class,
representing more types of schools and communities than Princeton does
currently. And it could change a campus culture by replacing the undercurrent
of privilege with one of luck. That would be truly
fair and equitable.

According to the From the Archives Web page, nobody has yet written in
to tell you that the four celebrants in the November 7 issue are from
the ancient and crusty class of 1995!

We recognize, from left to right, Vaise Lawhorne, Natanya Holland, maybe
Melissa Floren 96, and Jennifer Case. I would guess that the picture
was taken our freshman or sophomore year. P-Party, if we recall correctly,
was a (nonalcoholic) party thrown by the university to which all students
were invited. The dining halls were closed, and food was served down on
Poe Field, where a band played and spoiled kids from Rocky and Mathey
colleges grumbled about making the long walk just for a cold hoagie and
some potato chips.